-
From: Beverly SegnerTo: Planning DepartmentSubject: Coos County
File #AP-15-02 (ACU-14-31/CD-14-02Date: Friday, June 19, 2015
6:58:54 AMAttachments: 20150325-4013(30421932).pdf
ATT00001.htm
To: Coos County Planning Commission Coquille, Oregon
From: Beverly Segner, Coos County Resident
RE: File# ACU-14-31, CD-14-02
I am writing to object to the approval of conditional use for
JCEP’s barge berth, dredging, filling (both temporary and
permanent), and the fire station.
First, the applicant has failed to provide justification of
public need for this facility sufficient to warrant making
adjustments to the purposefully strict guidelines of the Coastal
and Shoreline Management Plans.
The purpose of the project has changed from import to export of
LNG and there is no proof provided of contracts or other
commitments for purchase of the product yet Coos County is being
asked to significantly alter the restrictions in place to protect
the valuable resource of our bay, estuary, and shoreline. Please
review the attachment of a letter to JCEP from the Army Corps of
Engineers submitted as FERC testimony outlining specific details of
information required for their approval of the project. You will
note that it is clearly stated that the current mitigation plans
offered by JCEP and the justification for the impact of the project
were deemed insufficient. I ask that the Coos County Planning
Commission and Staff enter this letter as part of my comments and
offer that these insufficiencies cited by the Army Corps of
Engineers be addressed by the applicant prior to approval. I submit
this letter as part of my comments.
Thank you for your attention.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]
-
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, PORTLAND DISTRICT
NORTH BEND FIELD OFFICE 2201 N. BROADWAY, SUITE C
NORTH BEND, OREGON 97459-2372
REPLY TO: ATTENTION OF:
March 20, 2015
Operations Division Regulatory Branch Corps No. NWP-2012-441 Mr.
Bob Braddock Jordan Cove Energy Project L.P. 125 Central Avenue,
Suite 380 Coos Bay, Oregon 97420 Dear Mr. Braddock:
This letter concerns the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
review of the Jordan Cove Energy Project’s (JCEP) request for
Department of Army (DA) authorization to construct a liquefied
natural gas (LNG) export terminal and associated natural gas
pipeline near North Bend, Oregon. The LNG facility includes a
marine slip and access channel, power plant, worker’s camp, and
appurtenant features including permanent and temporary roadways.
The natural gas pipeline crosses through Coos, Douglas, Jackson and
Klamath Counties. The project (Project) has been assigned Corps No.
NWP-2012-441. Please refer to this number in all future
correspondence.
The Corps circulated a 60-day public notice describing the
Project on November 14,
2014. The Corps received comments from multiple parties in
response to the notice. The comments are provided electronically on
the enclosed compact disc for your review (Enclosure 1).
The Corps’ decision to issue the permit, issue with conditions,
or deny the request
will be based upon an evaluation of the probable impacts of the
project, including cumulative impacts of the proposal, and the
project’s intended use on the public interest. During this review
the proposed project benefits which may reasonably be expected to
accrue from the proposal will be balanced against the reasonably
foreseeable detriments of the proposal. The purpose of this letter
is to advise you of the issues most relevant to our review and
afford you an opportunity to provide your perspective regarding
those issues.
In the application package provided you direct the Corps to
Resource Reports you have filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC). Resource Report 1 outlines the project is a
market-driven response to the availability of burgeoning and
abundant natural gas supplies in the U.S. and Canada and rising and
robust international demand for natural gas. Furthermore, the
project purpose is stated as the
-
- 2 -
development of a LNG export terminal on the U.S. Pacific Coast
whereby natural gas derived from Western Canadian and U.S. Northern
Rocky Mountain supply basin areas can be liquefied and loaded on
ocean-going LNG carriers for delivery to Asian and non-coterminous
U.S. Pacific markets.
The stated need for the project is to link gas producers with
excess supplies in U.S.
and Canadian supply basins, through existing pipeline systems
near Malin, Oregon, to national and international markets for sale.
In the application package provided, the Pacific Connector Gas
Pipeline’s (PCGP) stated need is to supply approximately 1.02 Bcf/d
of natural gas to the JCEP LNG export terminal.
We appreciate your recent clarification regarding the purpose
and need of the
proposed project as specific to LNG use only. JCEP had
previously defined the project design concept of the proposed slip
and associated access channel as a multi-use marine slip and access
channel which allows consolidation of Oregon International Port of
Coos Bay (Port) and JCEP development at a single slip in the lower
portion of Coos Bay. Such flexibility would allow for use of the
LNG terminal and potential future development by the Port
(reference JCEP Resource Report 10, Section 10.5.1). According to
JCEP’s February 23, 2015, memorandum the design and use of the
proposed slip and access channel are exclusively for the proposed
LNG export facility and do not include, nor are they designed for,
any other use than marine LNG export. If our interpretation of the
project purpose and need is incorrect please advise us.
The Corps uses the “overall project purpose,” to identify
practicable alternatives to the proposed action and in the
evaluation of those alternatives for compliance with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines (Guidelines). The overall project purpose must be
specific enough to define the need for and the geographic area of
consideration for the proposed project, but not so restrictive as
to preclude all discussion of off-site alternatives. The project
purpose defines the range and character of the potential
alternatives considered. It is the Corps’ responsibility to define
the overall project purpose with consideration of the applicant’s
stated purpose.
For activities involving 404 discharges, a permit will be denied
if the associated discharge does not comply with the Guidelines.
The Guidelines are binding regulations and provide the substantive
environmental standards by which all Section 404 permit
applications are evaluated. The Guidelines specifically require
that “no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted
if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge
which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so
long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse
effects.” The burden of proving no practicable alternative exists
is the sole responsibility of the applicant.
-
- 3 - The alternatives analysis provided in the permit
application with reference to the
Resource Reports, and in the FERC’s draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) contain insufficient information for the Corps’
evaluation of practicable alternatives.
JCEP utilized four evaluation criteria to screen viable
alternatives. The four
evaluation criteria are listed below:
• Develop an LNG terminal facility on the U.S. Pacific Coast
where natural gas from supply basins in Western Canada and the
Northern Rockies in the U.S. can be delivered through new or
existing natural gas pipeline system infrastructure, liquefied, and
loaded onto LNG carriers for delivery to Asian and non-coterminous
U.S. Pacific markets;
• Use a port location with a suitable and maintained depth for
deep draft vessels; • Use a port location with sufficiently sized
developable land that meets the
requirements for an LNG terminal facility; and • Use a site
location in a port that is consistent with existing industrial land
uses,
meets all applicable regulations, accommodates industry standard
LNG carriers and minimizes community and environmental impacts.
The basis, measure and/or application of several of the criteria
listed above is unclear. For example, in evaluating specific
alternative locations you identify the minimum channel depth as
-36-feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). Please confirm if this is the
minimum channel depth required to fulfill the project purpose.
Similarly, the current U.S. Coast Guard Water Suitability Report,
limits LNG vessels utilizing the Coos Bay channel to 148,000m^3 in
capacity. Please clarify if your site selection criteria or
applicant-preferred site location would require future modification
of the Coos Bay Federal Navigation Channel or modification to the
existing Coos Bay jetty system to accommodate LNG vessels capable
of transporting LNG quantities larger than 148,000^3 capacity.
We found you had applied additional criteria in the evaluation
of potential alternative
sites and note the following additional criteria were used to
evaluate alternative sites:
• Interconnection of the terminal by pipeline to existing FERC
or California Public Utilities Commission regulated natural gas
transmission systems in the Pacific Northwest and Northern
California;
• Avoidance of high population density areas and LNG terminal
siting and routing near areas of population density;
• Elimination of port locations with vessel transit navigation
restrictions such as shoaling, swift currents, bridges, power
lines, existing high levels of ship traffic, and other berths;
-
- 4 -
• Limiting LNG vessel transit distance; • Compatibility with
existing port users, to include existing deep draft vessel traffic;
• Minimizing impacts on the recreational and commercial fishing
industries; • Land ownership entirely controlled by private
industrial land owners of sufficient
size to site an LNG terminal; For any alternative you cannot
eliminate based upon consistency with the four
primary criteria identified above, which is not practicable, or
which would result in greater aquatic resource impacts, you will
need to provide a detailed comparative analysis of the direct,
secondary, and cumulative environmental impacts associated with the
construction of a LNG export facility at each of those locations.
If you relied on other criteria to reject potential alternatives
please revise your selection criteria accordingly.
If you are able to demonstrate that development of the LNG
export facility at an
another site is not practicable, would not fulfill the overall
project purpose, and/or would not have less adverse impact on the
aquatic environment, you will need to demonstrate other site
configurations and designs which would reduce aquatic resource
impacts are also not practicable.
Several of the proposed project components are expected to
result in adverse
effects to aquatic resources such as the destruction or
alteration of freshwater and estuarine wetland environments,
destruction of tidal mudflats, destruction of vegetated shallows,
and alteration of riffle and pool complexes, and are not
water-dependent. A use is not water dependant if it does not
require location in a special aquatic site to fulfill its basic
project purpose. The Guidelines state practicable alternatives that
do not involve the discharge of dredged or fill material into
special aquatic sites are presumed to be available unless clearly
demonstrated otherwise. The term practicable means available and
capable of being undertaken after taking into consideration cost,
existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project
purposes. Special aquatic sites as defined by Guidelines include
sanctuaries and refuges, wetlands, mudflats, vegetated shallows,
coral reefs, and riffle and pool complexes.
Primary project components which do not appear to be
water-dependent in design
and which do not require siting in special aquatic sites to
achieve the basic project purpose include:
• a LNG export facility, including an access channel and marine
slip which results
in the destruction of vegetated shallows and tidally-influenced
mudflats;
•
-
- 5 -
• the proposed 232-mile length natural gas pipeline which
results in the alteration of freshwater wetland and estuarine
wetland environments, alteration of tidal mudflats, alteration of
riffle and pool complexes, and the destruction of vegetated
shallows;
• a utility corridor, approximately one-mile long and 150-feet
wide, between the
LNG terminal and the South Dunes Power Plant (SDPP) which
includes an access road within, and adversely affects freshwater
wetland environments;
• the SDPP, which results in the destruction of freshwater and
estuarine wetland environments, tidally-influenced mudflats, and
vegetated shallows;
• the Southern Oregon Regional Safety Center facility which
results in the destruction of freshwater wetland environments;
Potential alternatives to the proposed slip, access channel, and
LNG berth include a trestle-supported LNG loading facility,
offshore LNG platform, or a shore-side dock and berthing facility
to moor LNG vessels constructed parallel to the existing bankline.
Please explain why these alternatives or other potential
alternatives are not practicable or would not accomplish the
overall project purpose.
Potential alternatives to the proposed pipeline route include
co-location with the
existing Coos County natural gas pipeline, utilizing existing
right of ways or upland routes, or utilizing a pipeline route which
follows the northern boundary of Haynes Inlet and Coos Bay rather
than directly within Haynes Inlet. Please explain why these
alternatives or other potential alternatives are not practicable or
would not accomplish the overall project purpose.
We’ve advised the FERC the analysis of impacts to the aquatic
environment
contained in the draft EIS does not sufficiently address the
impacts the potential short-term or long-term effects of the
proposed action on the physical, chemical, and biological
components of the aquatic environment. This analysis needs to
consider the factors critical to our evaluation to support a
finding the project is consistent with the Guidelines. The factual
determinations required by the Guidelines are used in 40 CFR 230.12
in making findings of compliance or non-compliance with the
restrictions on discharges found in 40 CFR 230.10. The substantive
criteria for evaluating the effects of each of these specific
factors are found in 40 CFR 230.11.
The Corps questions whether the wetland and waterbody crossing
and mitigation procedures defined in the Draft EIS and the
application package are adequately protective of the aquatic
environment and will ensure impacts to aquatic resources are
-
- 6 -
avoided, adequately minimized, and/or restored. FERC’s “Wetland
and Waterbody Crossing and Mitigation Procedures” (Procedures)
provide only a general framework for reducing aquatic resource
impacts during project planning and construction. The application
of these protocols to identify a preferred route is not sufficient
to demonstrate compliance with the Guidelines. The Procedures do
not require identification or consideration of alternate pipeline
routes which have less impact on the aquatic environment.
The crossing techniques and construction measures provided in
the Procedures do not provide adequate protection for minimizing
impacts to aquatic resources or adequate site restoration. A basic
concern is the standard for measuring the channel width. The FERC
Procedures are based on wetted widths of the waterbody at the time
of proposed crossing rather than ordinary high water mark of the
waterbody. As such, site-specific wetland or waterbody crossing
details are required only at major waterbody crossings defined as a
100-foot wetted width during the time of crossing. Additionally, a
major omission of the FERC procedures is the lack of the need to
provide for contingency plans for any proposed crossing other than
where horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is proposed to be
utilized.
To assist the Corps in assessing the potential project related
impacts, including the identification of all discharges of dredged
or fill material which may result from the project, please provide
the following information:
• A wetland and waterbody crossing contingency plan for proposed
HDD,
conventional bore, and direct pipe crossings within wetlands or
waterbodies. For example, if the Rogue River HDD crossing method
fails, what contingency crossing method would be implemented? The
Corps must understand how problematic or unforeseen situations may
be resolved at these specific wetland and waterbody crossing
locations if difficulties are encountered during the construction
process;
• A complete and accurate set of maps depicting where roadways
currently exist, where roadways are proposed to be constructed, and
where roadways are proposed to be expanded or otherwise modified
for the construction of the proposed pipeline. Clarify if culvert
replacements or roadway improvements to facilitate construction of
the project will result in the discharge of dredged or fill
material within a water of the U.S.;
• Clarify whether push-up dams or fill are required to be placed
in any aquatic resource to facilitate ponding of water required for
water withdrawal in relation to proposed pipeline hydrostatic
testing procedures;
-
- 7 -
• Clarify where excess material dredged from the proposed Haynes
Inlet crossing or other aquatic resource crossings will be placed.
The placement of a 36-inch diameter pipeline will likely result in
the displacement of a substantial amount of excess dredged material
resulting from the proposed 2.4-mile Haynes Inlet pipeline
crossing;
• Clarify if turbidity curtains will be utilized for the Haynes
Inlet crossing or if vessels conducting the pipeline trenching will
ground on the tidal mudflats of Haynes Inlet during this proposed
construction process. Clarify how you will effectively control or
manage turbidity associated with trenching this segment of pipeline
within Haynes Inlet.
The Portland Sediment Evaluation Team (PSET) is currently
reviewing the various project components to determine suitability
of, or further data requirements pertaining to, in-water disposal
or beneficial reuse of dredged or fill materials under the 2009
Pacific Northwest Sediment Evaluation Framework (SEF). Some project
sites have previously undergone sediment evaluation whereas some
project sites may require further sediment characterization. The
Corps appreciates JCEP’s involvement with the PSET to date to
evaluate the need to characterize sediment quality pursuant to the
2009 SEF. Depending on the alternative identified in the final EIS,
or ongoing project siting location changes, further sediment
testing may be required. The Corps will coordinate directly with
JCEP and PCGP regarding any need for future sediment testing and
evaluation at the various project sites.
JCEP has stated all dredged material resulting from the initial
construction of the facility will be placed upland with no material
being transported or disposed at Coos Bay Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Sites (ODMDS) or other in-water disposal site(s). JCEP
estimates they will need to dredge approximately 36,000 cubic yards
(cy) of material annually during the first ten years of site
operation for an estimated ten-year total of 360,000 cy.
Maintenance dredging volumes are expected to reduce to
approximately 330,000 cy in the second decade of operation. Please
identify all intended or proposed dredged material disposal sites
to be used for future maintenance dredging activities. It is
unclear whether the existing ODMDS sites can accommodate the volume
of material proposed for disposal.
An authorization under Section 103 of the Marine Protection,
Research and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) from the Corps and authorization from
the USEPA under Section 102 of the MPRSA would be required if you
intend to use one of the designated ODMDS sites for your future
maintenance dredging disposal. In their comments to the Corps’
public notice, USEPA identified the criteria or standards related
to the use of ODMDS Site F or Site H (Enclosure 2). USEPA outlined
use of ODMDS Site F or H is
-
- 8 -
primarily driven by grain size of the material to be disposed.
Unconfined in-water placement of dredged material is also driven
through an evaluation of the dredged material via the PSET under
the 2009 Pacific Northwest SEF. Future proposed disposal of dredged
sediments at ODMDS sites may warrant and require study and analysis
of ODMDS site parameters to ensure protection of environmental
factors and/or to accommodate the amount of material forecasted to
be discharged at those sites. Such studies and a site capacity
assessment will need to be undertaken with the appropriate
agencies.
If JCEP is able to overcome the presumption of practicable
alternatives to your proposal that would avoid or minimize the
project impacts, you will be required to provide compensatory
mitigation for the remaining impacts. A Compensatory Mitigation
Plan must replace the lost aquatic functions and values, and
contain detailed information regarding grading and planting,
maintenance and monitoring schedules, success criteria, and a
contingency plan.
Typical plans include a five-year monitoring period with three
years of maintenance
to ensure success criteria can be established. Moreover, a
contingency plan will be required for the mitigation plan in the
case that success criteria are not met. More information on the
mitigation requirements can be found on our website:
http://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/regulatory/home.asp click on
“Mitigation & monitoring” under “Permit documents &
information.” Please ensure all mitigation plans explain how the
mitigative action will replace lost aquatic functions and values
and are consistent with the required components of the 2008
compensatory wetland mitigation rule which can be accessed at the
following web address:
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/upload/2008_04_10_wetlands_wetlands_mitigation_final_rule_4_10_08.pdf
The proposed eelgrass mitigation site is located adjacent to the
Southwest Oregon Regional Airport (SORA). The Corps has signed a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), regarding siting restrictions to reduce or
eliminate aircraft-wildlife strikes during airport operations.
Compensatory mitigation siting should conform to the existing MOA.
The associated advisory circular 150/5200-33 specifies siting
criteria per airport type in Section 1-3 (Enclosure 3). The Corps
anticipates JCEP will file the appropriate documentation to assist
FERC, FAA, Corps, and SORA staff, to evaluate the potential to
impact to airport operations or public safety.
The Corps understands the Kentuck Slough Mitigation Site
mitigation plans are currently under revision. To assist us in
evaluating whether the proposal will adequately replace lost
environmental function and/or will not adversely affect property
owners in the project vicinity you will need to provide an
assessment of the proposed site modification effects upon ground
water elevations, salinity values, and water wells within the
project
http://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/regulatory/home.asp
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/upload/2008_04_10_wetlands_wetlands_mitigation_final_rule_4_10_08.pdf
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/upload/2008_04_10_wetlands_wetlands_mitigation_final_rule_4_10_08.pdf
-
- 9 -
vicinity. The assessment shall demonstrate the proposed physical
changes as a result of the mitigation effort will not adversely
affect adjacent or upstream or adjacent properties. Documentation
to support the assessment shall incorporate upstream monitoring
ground and water surface elevations including incorporation of both
tidal and streamflow data, estimated site hydrologic capacity
post-construction, routine projected storm or flow event interval
effects on site capacity, and a projected water management plan for
the mitigation site.
The assessment shall also include a discussion regarding how the
proposed site
modifications may impact existing mitigation sites within the
proposed mitigation project area. For example, the mitigation site
for Corps Action ID No. NWP-2005-754 is located on the southeast
side of Kentuck Slough directly upstream of the East Bay Road
bridge crossing over Kentuck Slough. Please clarify who will assume
responsibility for the long-term steward of the mitigation
site.
The project may impact a Corps federal project as defined at 33
U.S.C. Section 408. The Corps understand JCEP is coordinating the
Section 408 review process Mr. Bill Abadie and Ms. Marci Johnson of
the Corps Civil Works Planning Branch. Please ensure hard copies of
correspondence conducted with those parties are sent directly to
the Corps Regulatory Branch at the letterhead address outlined on
this letter.
The Corps anticipates JCEP will continue to work with FERC and
the other agencies to
address all applicable laws and regulations. An understanding of
JCEP’s compliance with these laws and regulations will help inform
our public interest review evaluation and determination.
Please review your construction plans to ensure any action that
will result in a
discharge of dredged or fill material within a water of the U.S.
or work within, under or over a navigable water has been identified
in the permit application materials.
Our final decision will be based on an analysis of the potential
project impacts weighed
against the reasonable expected benefits of the project, as well
as an analysis of the availability of less environmentally damaging
alternatives. The purpose of this letter is to summarize the
substantive issues and give JCEP the opportunity to provide your
views or information to help inform our decision. In your response,
please provide us with your selection criteria and an alternatives
analysis that consider the issues and concerns raised in this
letter as well as responses to other requested clarification. If
responses or information pertinent to any questions or issues
raised in this letter are found in the previously submitted
documentation please direct us to the correct location to obtain
such information.
-
- 10 - Please respond within 30 days of receipt of this letter.
If you require more time to
evaluate these concerns please notify us in writing at the
letterhead address. In your response please identify a timeline for
completing execution of the supplemental information requested.
If JCEP has any questions regarding the permit application or
our review process,
please contact me at the letterhead address, by telephone at
(541) 756-2097, or email [email protected].
Sincerely,
Tyler J. Krug Team Leader, Eugene Permit Section Regulatory
Branch
Enclosures Copies Furnished: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Friedman) U.S. Department of Energy (Talbert) U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (Nadeau/Kubo) U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service (Young/Thrailkill) U.S. Bureau of Land Management
(Liberatore) U.S. Forest Service (Yamamota) U.S. Coast Guard (Berg)
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Haitt) U.S. Department of
Transportation (Hoidal) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Abadie) U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Ott) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(McMillan) U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
(Thurston/Sanders) National Marine Fisheries Service (Phippen)
Federal Aviation Administration (Morgan) Oregon Department of State
Lands (Metz/Lobdell) Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(Camarata/Stine) Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development (Wade) Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (Gray)
Jordan Cove Energy Project, LP (Braddock)
mailto:[email protected]
-
- 11 - Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LLC (Miller) Oregon
International Port of Coos Bay (Koch) David Evans & Associates
(Sullivan/Stucker) Edge Environmental, Inc. (Last/Duce) Southwest
Oregon Regional Airport (Cook)
-
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 10
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Portland District ATTN: TylerKrug
North Bend Field Office 2201 N. Broadway, Suite C North Bend, OR
97249-2372
1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101
January 12, 2015
RE: PERMIT APPLICATION NWP-2012-441, Pacific Connector Gas
Pipeline Project and the International Port of Coos Bay, on behalf
of Jordan Cove Liquefied Natural Gas.
Dear Mr. Krug:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the
above referenced public notice for the proposed construction of a
liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal on the North Spit of Coos Bay,
Coos County, Oregon; and an associated pipeline that would
originate in Coos County, crossing Douglas, Jackson, and Klamath
Counties, to tenninate near Malin, Oregon. The project proposes
construction of a terminal facility on the North Spit of Coos Bay
where approximately 4.3 million cubic yards of material would be
dredged to create an access channel and marine slip. Additional
aquatic impacts would include 43 acres of permanent wetland and
waterway fill from construction of the terminal and the pipeline,
and approximately 277 acres of temporary impacts within 19
different watersheds in Oregon.
EPA has several concerns about the proposed project as we
believe it doesn't currently comply with the Clean Water Act
Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines. Additional information is needed
related to the purpose of the west berth, alternatives to siting of
the SORSC and work camp, and analysis and design of the Kentuck
Mitigation site, in order to demonstrate compliance with the
Guidelines. In light of these conclusions, EPA recommends that the
issues raised above be resolved prior to development of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement, or through continued coordination
in this 404 permitting process.
EPA appreciates the opportunity to review this project, and
looks forward to resolution of our concerns. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact me at (503) 326-2716, or Ms.
Bridgette Lohrman at (503) 326-4006.
cc: Sara Christensen, DEQ Chuck Wl1eeler, NMFS
Yvonne Vallette, Aquatic Ecologist Oregon Operations Office
C) Printed on Recycled Paper
NWP-2012-441 Page 1 of 6 Enclosure 2
-
EPA detailed comments on Public Notice NWP-2012-441, Pacific
Connector Gas Pipeline Project and the International Port of Coos
Bay, on behalf of Jordan Cove Liquefied Natural Gas.
Project Purpose and Need: The stated purpose and need for
development of this project is to facilitate the export of natural
gas from western Canadian and western US source to free-trade and
non-free trade countries with construction of a new West Coast LNG
export point to mainly serve Asian customers, and potentially
markets in Alaska and Hawaii. Pacific Connector would provide
natural gas produced in western Canada and the Rocky Mountains to
the Jordan Cove. However, we note that the energy supply and demand
landscape seems to be in a state of flux within the US. With one
other LNG proposal pursuing FERC licensing for a site in Oregon and
its associated natural gas pipeline within the same service area
that could provide new supplies of natural gas to the Pacific
Northwest from either Canada or the Rocky Mountains; there are
still many uncertainties associated with the current natural gas
market that puts the long-term commitment to any particular site
that would warrant the permanent and temporary impacts to natural
resources proposed with construction of the Jordan Cove facility
and the associated Pacific Connector Pipeline proposal, at
considerable risk.
Project Impacts: EPA has some concerns that the proposed project
will not provide the level or degree of economic benefit that the
applicants and local govermnents are anticipating, but will instead
contribute to further degradation of enviromnental conditions
within Coos Bay while eliminating or changing very valuable
in-channel and near shore habitat conditions. The tenninal site and
proposed pipeline are located within systems where the hydrological
and geological processes are very active and dynamic. Past human
activities in the estuary, such as channel modifications, sediment
removal, dike and levee construction, port and industrial
development have already significantly affected the natural
hydrologic processes of the watershed.
Sediment removal for construction of the tenninal and pipeline
can change the geomorphic structure of a river channel by lowering
riverbed elevations, often resulting in channel degradation and
erosion upstream and downstream of the activity area. Because such
removal alters the slope, depth, width, and roughness of the
channel, it disturbs the dynamic equilibrium of the river or
stream, which may lead to instability of not only that section of
the waterway, but also the upstream and/or downstream reaches.
Sediment removal to create an artificially induced thalweg like the
access channel and terminal marine slip, can result in a
channelizing effect and reduced channel width, resulting in
velocity increases causing downstream bank instability, loss of
habitat, and increased erosion rates. These changes prevent the
system from supporting a diversity of estuarine and near
shore-dependent species. They damage and destroy fish feeding and
rearing areas, destroy benthic communities, and alter aquatic
community composition, with adverse effects on the food chain.
Intensive sediment removal can also create a need for regular
maintenance dredging. Annual dredging destroys benthic commnnities
and prevents re-establishment of diverse fish habitats. For these
reasons, the proposed project is likely to significantly damage
fish habitat overall and increase local erosion rates well beyond
just the construction of the LNG terminal. EPA will be reviewing
and commenting on the Jordan Cove Energy and Pacific Connector Gas
Pipeline Project Draft Enviromnental Impact Statement (EIS) to
insure that impacts to other natural and human resources are
addressed and if possible, mitigated.
Alternative Analysis: The Port of Coos Bay is pursuing multiple
different future marine terminal development projects. One of those
projects is called the "Oregon Gateway Marine Terminal
Complex."
2
NWP-2012-441 Page 2 of 6 Enclosure 2
-
This complex would include the Jordan Cove LNG terminal berth on
the east side of the proposed marine slip, and an un-specified
commercial berth on west side of the slip. The Port has indicated
that it is considering a dry bulk terminal for silo-storage cargos
(i.e., grain, soy beans, etc.) served by the west berth. The Port's
conceptual drawing on its webpage of this dry bulk cargo terminal
on the west side of the Jordan Cove marine slip shows it
overlapping Henderson Marsh. We have concerns that the project's
reconfiguration for a single berth slip to a dual berth
configuration will facilitate the Port's overall expansion plans
without the benefit of being analyzed for within the context of the
current project purpose and need. It's not clear if the western
berth is a critical component of the LNG tenninal or if it has a
separate and independent utility for use by the Port of Coos Bay
that was simply added to the LNG terminal project. We believe that
additional infonnation is needed to justifY construction of the
western berth as well its proposed design configuration.
In evaluating the overall project's proposed siting
alternatives, EPA finds that alternative sites for the Southwest
Oregon Regional Safety Center (SORSC) and North Point Construction
works Camp were are not rigorously or objectively evaluated in any
comparative manner. We recommend that the Corps consider a more
thorough and objective evaluation of these facility locations based
on a set of siting criteria to demonstrate avoidance or
minimization of potential wetland fill. Siting criteria for these
ancillary features of the LNG terminal proposal should consider
such factors as overall environmental impacts, site access,
existing infrastructure, and public safety.
Dredging and Dredge Disposal: Under Section 102 of the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), the EPA has sole
authority for the designation of disposal sites in ocean waters to
be used for the disposal of clean dredged material, known as Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Sites (ODMDS). Designation is done
through formal rulemaking. The disposal of dredged material at an
ODMDS must be demonstrated to be in compliance with the ocean
dumping criteria found at 40 CFR Part 227, Subparts A-G, and the
General and Specific Ocean Dnmping criteria found at 40 CFR Part
228.5 and 40 CFR Part 228.6 respectively. Disposal sites must be
monitored periodically to "evaluate the impact of disposal on the
marine environment by referencing the monitoring results to a set
of baseline conditions." (228.9; 229.1 0). EPA's guidelines for
baseline and trend assessment surveys that will evaluate the
impacts of dredged material disposal, and specific types of surveys
to be used are described at 40 CFR 228.13.
EPA designated the current location and configuration of Coos
Bay ocean disposal sites E and H in 1986, and Site F in 2006. When
EPA designates disposal sites, EPA is required to develop and
implement a Site Management and Monitoring Plan. EPA and the US
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jointly developed this document and
co-manage the disposal of dredged material at these three sites.
Site E has not been used for disposal since 1990 and is not
expected to be used in the future. Since designation of Site F and
Site H, only the USACE and the International Port of Coos Bay have
disposed of dredged material at these two sites. The International
Port of Coos Bay coordinates with EPA and the USACE prior to
disposal at either of these sites.
Jordan Cove LNG proposes to use EPA's ODMDS for future
maintenance dredging actions. The applicant's "Dredged Material
Management Plan" (page 8) states that," ... maintenance material
will consist primarily of silt and clay material with some sand".
However, the Public Notice states, "Future dredged material is
proposed to be disposed of offshore at the Coos Bay Site F ocean
dredged material
3
NWP-2012-441 Page 3 of 6 Enclosure 2
-
disposal site (ODMDS) off of Coos Bay's North Jetty. Materials
to be dredged are predominantly fine to medium sized sands
generated by erosive processes in the bay and from the sides of the
constructed slip." These are two conflicting statements about the
potential grain size of the maintenance dredged material. Whether
Jordan Cove LNG would propose to dispose of dredged material at
either EPA's Site For Site H depends largely on grain size. For EPA
to consider dredged material disposal at either of our two sites,
Jordan Cove LNG would need to evaluate the disposal of their
material using the Pacific Northwest Sediment Evaluation Framework
(USACE 2009).a
Through this regulatory process, the applicant would analyze
grain size of the proposed dredged material. Dredged material that
is predominantly sand could be disposed at Site F. If the proposed
dredged material is predominantly fine sand, silt, or clay,
material would be disposed at Site H. The DMMP (Table 5-1, Page 47)
discounts the use of Site H because it states Site His "restricted
to finer-grained sands and silts from above river mile 12". Whether
an applicant can use either Site For Site His not based on the
location of the river mile, but instead the grain size of clean
dredged material. The EPA uses river mile 12 as a guide to
potential users for future planning needs. If material would be
best-suited for Site F, Jordan Cove LNG must conduct their own site
capacity assessment based on USACE data, projected permitted use by
the International Port of Coos Bay, and their projected use. EPA
and the US ACE would review and comment on the assessment. Tills
assessment and the EPA and USACE comment and approval must be
completed prior to EPA receiving a request for a MPRSA section 1 03
permit for disposal of dredged material at Site F. Furthermore, the
USACE Regulatory Project Manager would submit to EPA a public
notice pursuant to 33 CFR 337.1(a)(17), 33 CFR 325.3(a)(l7), 40 CFR
225.2(a)) and a section 103 criteria evaluation for the disposal of
dredged material at an EPA designated Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site based on 40 CFR 227 "Criteria for the Evaluation
ofPennit Applications of Ocean Dumping of Materials". In this
review, EPA is required to consider impaCts to economic
potentialities, which would include any impacts to the USACE
ability to maintain safe navigation for the public.
If the grain size of the material is finer-grained, Site H may
be the appropriate disposal location. As stated above, EPA would
require Jordan Cove LNG to conduct their own site capacity
assessment based on US ACE data, projected permitted use by the
International Port of Coos Bay, and their projected use. The EPA
and USACE's understanding of sediment dynamics at both Site F and
Site Hare evolving. Furthermore, since 2006 when Jordan Cove LNG
spoke with ocean dumping coordinators at the USACE and EPA, both
sites have received substantial volumes of dredged material. These
previous disposals, the hydrodynamics of the nearshore area,
changing winter storm intensities, and the response of the seafloor
geomorphology would need to be considered when modeling tl1e future
site capacity for both sites.
Site H is a significantly smaller disposal site than Site F so
the disposal site may not be able to accommodate current users'
needs with the addition of the Jordan Cove LNG's future needs. If
this is the outcome of the site capacity assessment, Jordan Cove
LNG would need to work with EPA to designate a new ocean dredged
material disposal site for finer-grained material. EPA's
designation process is outlined in 40 CFR Part 228.
a U.S . .A.nny Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington Depmtment of Ecology, Washington Department of
Natural Resources, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality,
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, National Marine
Fisheries Setvice, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009.
Sediment Evaluation Framework for the Pacific Northwest. Published
May 2009, by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nmthwestem Division,
128 p. plus Appendices.
4
NWP-2012-441 Page 4 of 6 Enclosure 2
-
Compensatory Mitigation: Construction of the LNG terminal
facilities would result in pennanent loss of about 38 acres of
wetlands and other aquatic resources, and temporary impacts to
about 35.6 acres of wetlands and other aquatic resources.
Construction of the pipeline facilities would temporarily affect
about 239 acres of wetlands and other aquatic resources, while
operation of the pipeline would result in the permanent conversion
of 5 acres of forested wetlands to other wetland types within the
permanent right-of- way.
To mitigate these wetland losses, the applicant proposes to
create, enhance or protect existing wetlands and aquatic habitat at
the West Bridge and Western Jordan Cove Mitigation sites for
freshwater impacts, and the Ken tuck Slough and Eel Grass
Mitigation sites for estuarine impacts. The bulk of wetland
compensatory mitigation for construction of the LNG terminal is
proposed at the Kentuck Mitigation site with up to 50.8 acres of
mitigation. Proposed mitigation on the Kentuck Golf Course
primarily consists of reestablishing tidal cmmections between
Kentuck Inlet and the former golf course. However, due to the
long-term urban development of the Kentuck Inlet area, implantation
of this mitigation proposal will require significant alterations
including: the raising and construction of a new bridge on East Bay
Drive, a new cross dike to prevent flooding to adjacent upstream
landowners, channel enhancements/re-routing, culvert removal, and
other dike repairs and augmentation. With so much investment
needing to go into a single mitigation site, a great deal of
analysis and detail is needed to insure that both its design and
construction is successful. There are potential concerns that the
mitigation project may contribute to flooding of upstream
neighbors, or that targeted wetland types may not develop if site
elevations are incorrect, or legacy contaminants associated with
the golf course may enter the site. EPA has not been provided the
most current (20 14) version of the Jordan Cove Energy Project
Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan (CWMP), therefore our comments
are limited to information provided in a 2013 version. Due to the
many complexities associated with this mitigation proposal, EPA
recommends that the Corps consider providing additional interagency
review into the most up-to-date CWMP to provide detailed input
towards its finalization and approval.
A notable omission in almost all of the proposed mitigation
plans was identification of a long-term steward for the mitigation
sites. A critical component to ensuring ecological success for any
of compensation arrangement is providing for the long-term
stewardship of mitigation sites. Recognizing that there are
conservation and/or land trust organizations already actively
involved with the management and restoration of sites within the
Coos Bay estuary, efforts should be made to bring one of these
groups into the mitigation planning process. Many of these
organizations have design concepts and monitoring data to assist in
development of a restoration/conservation proposal, as well as
establislnnent of appropriate perfonnance standards for these
sites. These same organizations could assist in projecting
estimated costs for site maintenance. As no mitigation site is
likely to be self-sustaining, provisions should also be made to
establish an endowment fund for future maintenance activities to
insure that high quality habitat is provided for after expiration
of the regulatory monitoring requirements. The applicant should not
be the long-term steward of these mitigation sites. Therefore, EPA
encourages the applicant to coordinate closely with conservation
organizations in finalizing their compensatory mitigation proposal.
In accordance with the 2008 Joint EP A/COE Compensatory Mitigation
Rule, EPA expects any final compensatory mitigation plan to have
provisions identifying a long-tenn steward, establislnnent of an
endowment fund and development of a long-term site management plan
for each approved mitigation site.
5
NWP-2012-441 Page 5 of 6 Enclosure 2
-
EPA Conclusions: Based on review of the subject Public Notice,
EPA concludes this project proposal does not currently comply with
the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines. We have concerns
with the need to: I) further characterize the full extent of
indirect impacts, 2) further address avoidance and minimization of
those potential impacts (which currently pose significant adverse
impacts to the aquatic environment in the total acreage and
associated functions), 3) adequately address on-site and within
basin compensatory mitigation options to address replacing lost
functions and values within the basin. Currently, EPA has concluded
that the project as proposed does not comply with 40 CFR Parts
230.10(a)-alternatives analysis to achieve least environmentally
damaging alternative, 230.1 0( c)-the project may cause or
contribute to significant adverse impacts to the aquatic
environment, or 230.1 0( d) - adequate mitigation in terms of
avoidance, minimization and then providing adequate compensatory
mitigation (in that order).
6
NWP-2012-441 Page 6 of 6 Enclosure 2
-
Memorandum of Agreement Between the Federal Aviation
Administration,
the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and
the U.S. Department of Agriculture to Address Aircraft-Wildlife
Strikes
PURPOSE The signatory agencies know the risks that
aircraft-wildlife strikes pose to safe aviation.
This Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) acknowledges each signatory
agency’s respective missions. Through this MOA, the agencies
establish procedures necessary to coordinate their missions to more
effectively address existing and future environmental conditions
contributing to aircraft-wildlife strikes throughout the United
States. These efforts are intended to minimize wildlife risks to
aviation and human safety, while protecting the Nation’s valuable
environmental resources.
BACKGROUND
Aircraft-wildlife strikes are the second leading causes of
aviation-related fatalities. Globally, these strikes have killed
over 400 people and destroyed more than 420 aircraft. While these
extreme events are rare when compared to the millions of annual
aircraft operations, the potential for catastrophic loss of human
life resulting from one incident is substantial. The most recent
accident demonstrating the grievous nature of these strikes
occurred in September 1995, when a U.S. Air Force reconnaissance
jet struck a flock of Canada geese during takeoff, killing all 24
people aboard.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the United States
Air Force (USAF) databases contain information on more than 54,000
United States civilian and military aircraft-wildlife strikes
reported to them between 1990 and 19991. During that decade, the
FAA received reports indicating that aircraft-wildlife strikes,
damaged 4,500 civilian U.S. aircraft (1,500 substantially),
destroyed 19 aircraft, injured 91 people, and killed 6 people.
Additionally, there were 216 incidents where birds struck two or
more engines on civilian aircraft, with damage occurring to 26
percent of the 449 engines involved in these incidents. The FAA
estimates that during the same decade, civilian U.S. aircraft
sustained $4 billion worth of damages and associated losses and 4.7
million hours of aircraft downtime due to aircraft-wildlife
strikes. For the same period, 1 FAA estimates that the 28,150
aircraft-wildlife strike reports it received represent less than
20% of the actual number of strikes that occurred during the
decade.
NWP-2012-441 Page 1 of 28 Enclosure 3
-
USAF planes colliding with wildlife resulted in 10 Class A
Mishaps2, 26 airmen deaths, and over $217 million in damages.
Approximately 97 percent of the reported civilian
aircraft-wildlife strikes involved common, large-bodied birds or
large flocks of small birds. Almost 70 percent of these events
involved gulls, waterfowl, and raptors (Table 1).
About 90 percent of aircraft-wildlife strikes occur on or near
airports, when aircraft are below altitudes of 2,000 feet.
Aircraft-wildlife strikes at these elevations are especially
dangerous because aircraft are moving at high speeds and are close
to or on the ground. Aircrews are intently focused on complex
take-off or landing procedures and monitoring the movements of
other aircraft in the airport vicinity. Aircrew attention to these
activities while at low altitudes often compromises their ability
to successfully recover from unexpected collisions with wildlife
and to deal with rapidly changing flight procedures. As a result,
crews have minimal time and space to recover from aircraft-wildlife
strikes.
Increasing bird and wildlife populations in urban and suburban
areas near airports contribute to escalating aircraft-wildlife
strike rates. FAA, USAF, and Wildlife Services (WS) experts expect
the risks, frequencies, and potential severities of
aircraft-wildlife strikes to increase during the next decade as the
numbers of civilian and military aircraft operations grow to meet
expanding transportation and military demands.
SECTION I.
SCOPE OF COOPERATION AND COORDINATION
Based on the preceding information and to achieve this MOA’s
purpose, the signatory agencies:
A. Agree to strongly encourage their respective regional and
local offices, as appropriate, to develop interagency coordination
procedures necessary to effectively and efficiently implement this
MOA. Local procedures should clarify time frames and other general
coordination guidelines.
B. Agree that the term “airport” applies only to those
facilities as defined in the attached glossary.
C. Agree that the three major activities of most concern
include, but are not limited to:
1. airport siting and expansion;
2 See glossary for the definition of a Class A Mishap and
similar terms.
NWP-2012-441 Page 2 of 28 Enclosure 3
-
2. development of conservation/mitigation habitats or other land
uses that could attract hazardous wildlife to airports or nearby
areas; and
3. responses to known wildlife hazards or aircraft-wildlife
strikes. D. Agree that “hazardous wildlife” are those animals,
identified to species and
listed in FAA and USAF databases, that are most often involved
in aircraft-wildlife strikes. Many of the species frequently
inhabit areas on or near airports, cause structural damage to
airport facilities, or attract other wildlife that pose an
aircraft-wildlife strike hazard. Table 1 lists many of these
species. It is included solely to provide information on identified
wildlife species that have been involved in aircraft-wildlife
strikes. It is not intended to represent the universe of species
concerning the signatory agencies, since more than 50 percent of
the aircraft-wildlife strikes reported to FAA or the USAF did not
identify the species involved.
E. Agree to focus on habitats attractive to the species noted in
Table 1, but the
signatory agencies realize that it is imperative to recognize
that wildlife hazard determinations discussed in Paragraph L of
this section may involve other animals.
F. Agree that not all habitat types attract hazardous wildlife.
The signatory agencies, during their consultative or decisionmaking
activities, will inform regional and local land use authorities of
this MOA’s purpose. The signatory agencies will consider regional,
local, and site-specific factors (e.g., geographic setting and/or
ecological concerns) when conducting these activities and will work
cooperatively with the authorities as they develop and implement
local land use programs under their respective jurisdictions. The
signatory agencies will encourage these stakeholders to develop
land uses within the siting criteria noted in Section 1-3 of FAA
Advisory Circular (AC) 150.5200-33 (Attachment A) that do not
attract hazardous wildlife. Conversely, the agencies will promote
the establishment of land uses attractive to hazardous wildlife
outside those siting criteria. Exceptions to the above siting
criteria, as described in Section 2.4.b of the AC, will be
considered because they typically involve habitats that provide
unique ecological functions or values (e.g., critical habitat for
federally-listed endangered or threatened species, ground water
recharge).
G. Agree that wetlands provide many important ecological
functions and values, including fish and wildlife habitats; flood
protection; shoreline erosion control; water quality improvement;
and recreational, educational, and research opportunities. To
protect jurisdictional wetlands, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) establishes a program to regulate dredge and/or fill
activities in these wetlands and navigable waters. In recognizing
Section 404 requirements and the Clean Water Action Plan’s goal to
annually increase the Nation’s net wetland acreage by 100,000 acres
through 2005, the signatory agencies agree to resolve
aircraft-wildlife conflicts. They will do so by
NWP-2012-441 Page 3 of 28 Enclosure 3
-
avoiding and minimizing wetland impacts to the maximum extent
practicable, and will work to compensate for all associated
unavoidable wetland impacts. The agencies agree to work with
landowners and communities to encourage and support wetland
restoration or enhancement efforts that do not increase
aircraft-wildlife strike potentials.
H. Agree that the: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) has
expertise in protecting and managing jurisdictional wetlands and
their associated wildlife; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has expertise in protecting environmental resources; and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has expertise in protecting
and managing wildlife and their habitats, including migratory birds
and wetlands. Appropriate signatory agencies will cooperatively
review proposals to develop or expand wetland mitigation sites, or
wildlife refuges that may attract hazardous wildlife. When planning
these sites or refuges, the signatory agencies will diligently
consider the siting criteria and land use practice recommendations
stated in FAA AC 150/5200-33. The agencies will make every effort
to undertake actions that are consistent with those criteria and
recommendations, but recognize that exceptions to the siting
criteria may be appropriate (see Paragraph F of this section).
I. Agree to consult with airport proponents during initial
airport planning efforts. As appropriate, the FAA or USAF will
initiate signatory agency participation in these efforts. When
evaluating proposals to build new civilian or military aviation
facilities or to expand existing ones, the FAA or the USAF, will
work with appropriate signatory agencies to diligently evaluate
alternatives that may avoid adverse effects on wetlands, other
aquatic resources, and Federal wildlife refuges. If these or other
habitats support hazardous wildlife, and there is no practicable
alternative location for the proposed aviation project, the
appropriate signatory agencies, consistent with applicable laws,
regulations, and policies, will develop mutually acceptable
measures, to protect aviation safety and mitigate any unavoidable
wildlife impacts.
J. Agree that a variety of other land uses (e.g., storm water
management facilities, wastewater treatment systems, landfills,
golf courses, parks, agricultural or aquacultural facilities, and
landscapes) attract hazardous wildlife and are, therefore, normally
incompatible with airports. Accordingly, new, federally-funded
airport construction or airport expansion projects near habitats or
other land uses that may attract hazardous wildlife must conform to
the siting criteria established in the FAA Advisory Circular (AC)
150/5200-33, Section 1-3.
K. Agree to encourage and advise owners and/or operators of
non-airport facilities that are known hazardous wildlife
attractants (See Paragraph J) to follow the siting criteria in
Section 1-3 of AC 150/5200-33. As appropriate, each signatory
agency will inform proponents of these or other land uses about the
land use’s potential to attract hazardous species to airport
areas.
NWP-2012-441 Page 4 of 28 Enclosure 3
-
The signatory agencies will urge facility owners and/or
operators about the critical need to consider the land uses’
effects on aviation safety.
L. Agree that FAA, USAF, and WS personnel have the expertise
necessary to determine the aircraft-wildlife strike potentials of
various land uses. When there is disagreement among signatory
agencies about a particular land use and its potential to attract
hazardous wildlife, the FAA, USAF, or WS will prepare a wildlife
hazard assessment. Then, the appropriate signatory agencies will
meet at the local level to review the assessment. At a minimum,
that assessment will:
1. identify each species causing the aviation hazard, its
seasonal and daily populations, and the population’s local
movements;
2. discuss locations and features on and near the airport or
land use attractive to hazardous wildlife; and
3. evaluate the extent of the wildlife hazard to aviation.
M. Agree to cooperate with the airport operator to develop a
specific, wildlife hazard management plan for a given location,
when a potential wildlife hazard is identified. The plan will meet
applicable FAA, USAF, and other relevant requirements. In
developing the plan, the appropriate agencies will use their
expertise and attempt to integrate their respective programmatic
responsibilities, while complying with existing laws, regulations,
and policies. The plan should avoid adverse impacts to wildlife
populations, wetlands, or other sensitive habitats to the maximum
extent practical. Unavoidable impacts resulting from implementing
the plan will be fully compensated pursuant to all applicable
Federal laws, regulations, and policies.
N. Agree that whenever a significant aircraft-wildlife strike
occurs or a potential for one is identified, any signatory agency
may initiate actions with other appropriate signatory agencies to
evaluate the situation and develop mutually acceptable solutions to
reduce the identified strike probability. The agencies will work
cooperatively, preferably at the local level, to determine the
causes of the strike and what can and should be done at the airport
or in its vicinity to reduce potential strikes involving that
species.
O. Agree that information and analyses relating to mitigation
that could cause or contribute to aircraft-wildlife strikes should,
whenever possible, be included in documents prepared to satisfy the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This should be done in
coordination with appropriate signatory agencies to inform the
public and Federal decision makers about important ecological
factors that may affect aviation. This concurrent review of
environmental issues will promote the streamlining of the NEPA
review process.
P. Agree to cooperatively develop mutually acceptable and
consistent guidance, manuals, or procedures addressing the
management of habitats attractive to
NWP-2012-441 Page 5 of 28 Enclosure 3
-
hazardous wildlife, when those habitats are or will be within
the siting criteria noted in Section 1-3 of FAA AC 5200-33. As
appropriate, the signatory agencies will also consult each other
when they propose revisions to any regulations or guidance relevant
to the purpose of this MOA, and agree to modify this MOA
accordingly.
SECTION II. GENERAL RULES AND INFORMATION
A. Development of this MOA fulfills the National Transportation
Safety Board’s recommendation of November 19, 1999, to form an
inter-departmental task force to address aircraft-wildlife strike
issues.
B. This MOA does not nullify any obligations of the signatory
agencies to enter into separate MOAs with the USFWS addressing the
conservation of migratory birds, as outlined in Executive Order
13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory
Birds, dated January 10, 2001 (66 Federal Register, No. 11, pg.
3853).
C. This MOA in no way restricts a signatory agency’s
participation in similar activities or arrangements with other
public or private agencies, organizations, or individuals.
D. This MOA does not alter or modify compliance with any Federal
law, regulation or guidance (e.g., Clean Water Act; Endangered
Species Act; Migratory Bird Treaty Act; National Environmental
Policy Act; North American Wetlands Conservation Act; Safe Drinking
Water Act; or the “no-net loss” policy for wetland protection). The
signatory agencies will employ this MOA in concert with the Federal
guidance addressing wetland mitigation banking dated March 6, 1995
(60 Federal Register, No. 43, pg. 12286).
E. The statutory provisions and regulations mentioned above
contain legally binding requirements. However, this MOA does not
substitute for those provisions or regulations, nor is it a
regulation itself. This MOA does not impose legally binding
requirements on the signatory agencies or any other party, and may
not apply to a particular situation in certain circumstances. The
signatory agencies retain the discretion to adopt approaches on a
case-by-case basis that differ from this MOA when they determine it
is appropriate to do so. Such decisions will be based on the facts
of a particular case and applicable legal requirements. Therefore,
interested parties are free to raise questions and objections about
the substance of this MOA and the appropriateness of its
application to a particular situation.
F. This MOA is based on evolving information and may be revised
periodically without public notice. The signatory agencies welcome
public comments on this MOA at any time and will consider those
comments in any future revision of this MOA.
NWP-2012-441 Page 6 of 28 Enclosure 3
-
G. This MOA is intended to improve the internal management of
the Executive Branch to address conflicts between aviation safety
and wildlife. This MOA does not create any right, benefit, or trust
responsibility, either substantively or procedurally. No party, by
law or equity, may enforce this MOA against the United States, its
agencies, its officers, or any person.
H. This MOA does not obligate any signatory agency to allocate
or spend appropriations or enter into any contract or other
obligations.
I. This MOA does not reduce or affect the authority of Federal,
State, or local agencies regarding land uses under their respective
purviews. When requested, the signatory agencies will provide
technical expertise to agencies making decisions regarding land
uses within the siting criteria in Section 1-3 of FAA AC
150/5200-33 to minimize or prevent attracting hazardous wildlife to
airport areas.
J. Any signatory agency may request changes to this MOA by
submitting a written request to any other signatory agency and
subsequently obtaining the written concurrence of all signatory
agencies.
K. Any signatory agency may terminate its participation in this
MOA within 60 days of providing written notice to the other
agencies. This MOA will remain in effect until all signatory
agencies terminate their participation in it.
SECTION III. PRINCIPAL SIGNATORY AGENCY CONTACTS The following
list identifies contact offices for each signatory agency. Federal
Aviation Administration U.S. Air Force Office Airport Safety and
Standards HQ AFSC/SEFW Airport Safety and 9700 Ave., G. SE, Bldg.
24499 Compliance Branch (AAS-310) Kirtland AFB, NM 87117 800
Independence Ave., S.W. V: 505-846-5679 Washington, D.C. 20591 F:
505-846-0684 V: 202-267-1799 F: 202-267-7546 U.S. Army U.S.
Environmental Protection Agy. Directorate of Civil Works Office of
Water Regulatory Branch (CECW-OR) Wetlands Division 441 G St., N.W.
Ariel Rios Building, MC 4502F Washington, D.C. 20314 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., SW V: 202-761-4750 Washington, D.C. 20460 F:
202-761-4150 V: 202-260-1799 F: 202-260-7546
NWP-2012-441 Page 7 of 28 Enclosure 3
-
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of Agriculture
Division of Migratory Bird Management Animal and Plant Inspection
Service 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 634 Wildlife Services
Arlington, VA 22203 Operational Support Staff V: 703-358-1714 4700
River Road, Unit 87 F: 703-358-2272 Riverdale, MD 20737 V:
301-734-7921 F: 301-734-5157
NWP-2012-441 Page 8 of 28 Enclosure 3
-
Signature Page
/~~
Federal Aviation Administration
~~i 17/10 L
Date
~"}J1~dh3 ~
DateChief of Safety,U. S. Air Force
~,~r-. .IDate
~~...~.Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works)Department of the Army
(y-- ~IJ ~IOffice ofWater,
Protection Agencyu.s.
'/'~ 9103-75a~ ' ./ --~~c~~
and State Programs,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
~~ M .~ -
./Jc/l~ Deputy Administrator I Wildlife ServicesU U.S.
Department of Agriculture
c~ ~P4r' L/~.3
bate (1
NWP-2012-441 Page 9 of 28 Enclosure 3
-
GLOSSARY
This glossary defines terms used in this MOA. Airport. All USAF
airfields or all public use airports in the FAA’s National Plan of
Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Note: There are over 18,000
civil-use airports in the U.S., but only 3,344 of them are in the
NPIAS and, therefore, under FAA’s jurisdiction. Aircraft-wildlife
strike. An aircraft-wildlife strike is deemed to have occurred
when:
1. a pilot reports that an aircraft struck 1 or more birds or
other wildlife; 2. aircraft maintenance personnel identify aircraft
damage as having
been caused by an aircraft-wildlife strike; 3. personnel on the
ground report seeing an aircraft strike 1 or more
birds or other wildlife; 4. bird or other wildlife remains,
whether in whole or in part, are found
within 200 feet of a runway centerline, unless another reason
for the animal's death is identified; or
5. the animal's presence on the airport had a significant,
negative effect on a flight (i.e., aborted takeoff, aborted
landing, high-speed emergency stop, aircraft left pavement area to
avoid collision with animal)
(Source: Wildlife Control Procedures Manual, Technical
Publication 11500E, 1994). Aircraft-wildlife strike hazard. A
potential for a damaging aircraft collision with wildlife on or
near an airport (14 CFR 139.3). Bird Sizes. Title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 33.76 classifies birds according to
weight:
small birds weigh less than 3 ounces (oz). medium birds weigh
more than 3 oz and less than 2.5 lbs. large birds weigh greater
than 2.5 lbs.
Civil aircraft damage classifications. The following damage
descriptions are based on the Manual on the International Civil
Aviation Organization Bird Strike Information System:
Minor: The aircraft is deemed airworthy upon completing simple
repairs or replacing minor parts and an extensive inspection is not
necessary.
NWP-2012-441 Page 10 of 28 Enclosure 3
-
Substantial: Damage or structural failure adversely affects an
aircraft’s structural integrity, performance, or flight
characteristics. The damage normally requires major repairs or the
replacement of the entire affected component. Bent fairings or
cowlings; small dents; skin punctures; damage to wing tips,
antenna, tires or brakes, or engine blade damage not requiring
blade replacement are specifically excluded. Destroyed: The damage
sustained makes it inadvisable to restore the aircraft to an
airworthy condition.
Significant Aircraft-Wildlife Strikes. A significant
aircraft-wildlife strike is deemed to have occurred when any of the
following applies:
1. a civilian, U.S. air carrier aircraft experiences a multiple
aircraft-bird strike or engine ingestion;
2. a civilian, U.S. air carrier aircraft experiences a damaging
collision with wildlife other than birds; or
3. a USAF aircraft experiences a Class A, B, or C mishap as
described below:
A. Class A Mishap: Occurs when at least one of the following
applies: 1. total mishap cost is $1,000,000 or more; 2. a
fatality or permanent total disability occurs; and/or 3. an Air
Force aircraft is destroyed.
B. Class B Mishap: Occurs when at least one of the following
applies:
1. total mishap cost is $200,000 or more and less than
$1,000,000; and/or
2. a permanent partial disability occurs and/or 3 or more people
are hospitalized;
C. Class C Mishap: Occurs when at least one of the following
applies:
1. cost of reported damage is between $20,000 and $200,000;
2. an injury causes a lost workday (i.e., duration of absence is
at least 8 hours beyond the day or shift during which mishap
occurred); and/or
3. an occupational illness causing absence from work at any
time.
Wetlands. An ecosystem requiring constant or recurrent, shallow
inundation or saturation at or near the surface of the substrate.
The minimum essential characteristics of a wetland are recurrent,
sustained inundation or saturation at or
NWP-2012-441 Page 11 of 28 Enclosure 3
-
near the surface and the presence of physical, chemical, and
biological features indicating recurrent, sustained inundation, or
saturation. Common diagnostic wetland features are hydric soils and
hydrophytic vegetation. These features will be present, except
where specific physiochemical, biotic, or anthropogenic factors
have removed them or prevented their development. (Source the 1987
Delineation Manual; 40 CFR 230.3(t)). Wildlife. Any wild animal,
including without limitation any wild mammal, bird, reptile, fish,
amphibian, mollusk, crustacean, arthropod, coelenterate, or other
invertebrate, including any part, product, egg, or offspring there
of (50 CFR 10.12, Taking, Possession, Transportation, Sale,
Purchase, Barter, Exportation, and Importation of Wildlife and
Plants). As used in this MOA, “wildlife” includes feral animals and
domestic animals while out of their owner’s control (14 CFR 139.3,
Certification and Operations: Land Airports Serving
CAB-Certificated Scheduled Air Carriers Operating Large Aircraft
(Other Than Helicopters))
NWP-2012-441 Page 12 of 28 Enclosure 3
-
Table 1. Identified wildlife species, or groups, that were
involved in two or more aircraft-wildlife strikes, that caused
damage to one or more aircraft components, or that had an adverse
effect on an aircraft’s flight. Data are for 1990-1999 and involve
only civilian, U.S. aircraft. Birds No. reported strikes Gulls (all
spp.) 874 Geese (primarily, Canada geese) 458 Hawks (primarily,
Red-tailed hawks) 182 Ducks (primarily Mallards.) 166 Vultures
(primarily, Turkey vulture) 142 Rock doves 122 Doves (primarily,
mourning doves) 109 Blackbirds 81 European starlings 55 Sparrows 52
Egrets 41 Shore birds (primarily, Killdeer & Sandpipers)
40
Crows 31 Owls 24 Sandhill cranes 22 American kestrels 15 Great
blue herons 15 Pelicans 14 Swallows 14 Eagles (Bald and Golden) 14
Ospreys 13 Ring-necked pheasants 11 Herons 11 Barn-owls 9 American
robins 8 Meadowlarks 8 Buntings (snow) 7 Cormorants 6 Snow buntings
6 Brants 5 Terns (all spp.) 5 Great horned owls 5 Horned larks 4
Turkeys 4 Swans 3 Mockingbirds 3 Quails 3 Homing pigeons 3 Snowy
owls 3 Anhingas 2
NWP-2012-441 Page 13 of 28 Enclosure 3
-
Ravens 2 Kites 2 Falcons 2 Peregrine falcons 2 Merlins 2 Grouse
2 Hungarian partridges 2 Spotted doves 2 Thrushes 2 Mynas 2 Finches
2 Total known birds 2,612 Mammals No. reported strikes Deer
(primarily, White-tailed deer) 285 Coyotes 16 Dogs 10 Elk 6 Cattle
5 Bats 4 Horses 3 Pronghorn antelopes 3 Foxes 2 Raccoons 2 Rabbits
2 Moose 2 Total known mammals 340 Ring-billed gulls were the most
commonly struck gulls. The U.S. ring-billed gull population
increased steadily at about 6% annually from 1966-1988. Canada
geese were involved in about 90% of the aircraft-goose strikes
involving civilian, U.S. aircraft from 1990-1998. Resident
(non-migratory) Canada goose populations increased annually at 13%
from 1966-1998. Red-tailed hawks accounted for 90% of the
identified aircraft-hawk strikes for the 10-year period. Red-tailed
hawk populations increased annually at 3% from 1966 to 1998. Turkey
vultures were involved in 93% of he identified aircraft-vulture
strikes. The U.S. Turkey vulture populations increased at annually
at 1% between 1966 and 1998. Deer, primarily white-tailed deer,
have also adapted to urban and airport areas and their populations
have increased dramatically. In the early 1900’s, there were about
100,000 white-tailed deer in the U.S. Current estimates are that
the U.S. population is about 24 million.
NWP-2012-441 Page 14 of 28 Enclosure 3
-
U.S. Departmentof Transportation
Federal AviationAdministration
AdvisoryCircular
Subject: HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ATTRACTANTS ONOR NEAR AIRPORTS
Date: 5/1/97Initiated by:AAS-310 and APP-600
AC No: 150/5200-33Change:
1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC)provides guidance on
locating certain land useshaving the potential to attract hazardous
wildlife toor in the vicinity of public-use airports. It
alsoprovides guidance concerning the placement ofnew airport
development projects (including airportconstruction, expansion, and
renovation) pertainingto aircraft movement in the vicinity of
hazardouswildlife attractants. Appendix 1 providesdefinitions of
terms used in this AC.
2. APPLICATION. The standards, practices,and suggestions
contained in this AC arerecommended by the Federal
AviationAdministration (FAA) for use by the operators andsponsors
of all public-use airports. In addition, thestandards, practices,
and suggestions contained inthis AC are recommended by the FAA as
guidancefor land use planners, operators, and developers
ofprojects, facilities, and activities on or near airports.
3. BACKGROUND. Populations of manyspecies of wildlife have
increased markedly in the
last few years. Some of these species are able toadapt to
human-made environments, such as existon and around airports. The
increase in wildlifepopulations, the use of larger turbine engines,
theincreased use of twin-engine aircraft, and theincrease in
air-traffic, all combine to increase therisk, frequency, and
potential severity of wildlife-aircraft collisions.
Most public-use airports have large tracts of open,unimproved
land that are desirable for added mar-gins of safety and noise
mitigation. These areascan present potential hazards to aviation
becausethey often attract hazardous wildlife. During thepast
century, wildlife-aircraft strikes have resultedin the loss of
hundreds of lives world-wide, as wellas billions of dollars worth
of aircraft damage.Hazardous wildlife attractants near airports
couldjeopardize future airport expansion because ofsafety
considerations.
DAVID L. BENNETTDirector, Office of Airport Safety and
Standards
NWP-2012-441 Page 15 of 28 Enclosure 3
-
NWP-2012-441 Page 16 of 28 Enclosure 3
-
5/1/97 AC 150/5200-33
1 (and 2)
SECTION 1. HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ATTRACTANTS ON OR
NEARAIRPORTS.
1-1. TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WILDLIFEATTRACTANTS ON OR NEAR
AIRPORTS.Human-made or natural areas, such as poorly-drained areas,
retention ponds, roosting habitats onbuildings, landscaping,
putrescible-waste disposaloperations, wastewater treatment
plants,agricultural or aquacultural activities, surfacemining, or
wetlands, may be used by wildlife forescape, feeding, loafing, or
reproduction. Wildlifeuse of areas within an airport's approach or
depar-ture airspace, aircraft movement areas, loadingramps, or
aircraft parking areas may cause condi-tions hazardous to aircraft
safety.
All species of wildlife can pose a threat to aircraftsafety.
However, some species are morecommonly involved in aircraft strikes
than others.Table 1 lists the wildlife groups commonly reportedas
being involved in damaging strikes to U.S.aircraft from 1993 to
1995.
Table 1. Wildlife Groups Involved in DamagingStrikes to Civilian
Aircraft, USA, 1993-1995.
WildlifeGroups
Percent involvement inreported damagingstrikes
Gulls 28
Waterfowl 28
Raptors 11
Doves 6
Vultures 5
Blackbirds-
Starlings
5
Corvids 3
Wading birds 3
Deer 11
Canids 1
1-2. LAND USE PRACTICES. Land usepractices that attract or
sustain hazardous wildlifepopulations on or near airports can
significantly in-crease the potential for wildlife-aircraft
collisions.FAA recommends against land use practices, withinthe
siting criteria stated in 1-3, that attract or sustainpopulations
of hazardous wildlife within thevicinity of airports or cause
movement of haz-ardous wildlife onto, into, or across the approach
ordeparture airspace, aircraft movement area, loadingramps, or
aircraft parking area of airports.
Airport operators, sponsors, planners, and land usedevelopers
should consider whether proposed landuses, including new airport
development projects,would increase the wildlife hazard. Caution
shouldbe exercised to ensure that land use practices on ornear
airports do not enhance the attractiveness ofthe area to hazardous
wildlife.
1-3. SITING CRITERIA. FAA recommendsseparations when siting any
of the wildlifeattractants mentioned in Section 2 or whenplanning
new airport development projects toaccommodate aircraft movement.
The distancebetween an airport’s aircraft movement areas,loading
ramps, or aircraft parking areas and thewildlife attractant should
be as follows:
a. Airports serving piston-poweredaircraft. A distance of 5,000
feet is recommended.
b. Airports serving turbine-poweredaircraft. A distance of
10,000 feet isrecommended.
c. Approach or Departure airspace. Adistance of 5 statute miles
is recommended, if thewildlife attractant may cause hazardous
wildlifemovement into or across the approach or
departureairspace.
NWP-2012-441 Page 17 of 28 Enclosure 3
-
NWP-2012-441 Page 18 of 28 Enclosure 3
-
5/1/97 AC 150/5200-33
3
SECTION 2. LAND USES THAT ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH SAFEAIRPORT
OPERATIONS.
2-1. GENERAL. The wildlife species and thesize of the
populations attracted to the airportenvironment are highly variable
and may dependon several factors, including land-use practices onor
near the airport. It is important to identify thoseland use
practices in the airport area that attracthazardous wildlife. This
section discusses land usepractices known to threaten aviation
safety.
2-2. PUTRESCIBLE-WASTE DISPOSALOPERATIONS. Putrescible-waste
disposaloperations are known to attract large numbers ofwildlife
that are hazardous to aircraft. Because ofthis, these operations,
when located within theseparations identified in the sitting
criteria in 1-3are considered incompatible with safe
airportoperations.
FAA recommends against locatingputrescible-waste disposal
operations inside theseparations identified in the siting
criteriamentioned above. FAA also recommends againstnew airport
development projects that wouldincrease the number of aircraft
operations or thatwould accommodate larger or faster aircraft,
nearputrescible-waste disposal operations locatedwithin the
separations identified in the sitingcriteria in 1-3.
2-3. WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILI-TIES. Wastewater treatment
facilities andassociated settling ponds often attract largenumbers
of wildlife that can pose a threat to aircraftsafety when they are
located on or near an airport.
a. New wastewater treatment facilities.FAA recommends against
the construction of newwastewater treatment facilities or
associated settlingponds within the separations identified in the
sitingcriteria in 1-3. During the siting analysis forwastewater
treatment facilities, the potential toattract hazardous wildlife
should be considered ifan airport is in the vicinity of a proposed
site.Airport operators should voice their opposition tosuch
sitings. In addition, they should consider theexistence of
wastewater treatment facilities whenevaluating proposed sites for
new airportdevelopment projects and avoid such sites
whenpracticable.
b. Existing wastewater treatmentfacilities. FAA recommends
correcting anywildlife hazards arising from existing
wastewatertreatment facilities located on or near airportswithout
delay, using appropriate wildlife hazardmitigation techniques.
Accordingly, measures tominimize hazardous wildlife attraction
should bedeveloped in consultation with a wildlife damagemanagement
biologist. FAA recommends thatwastewater treatment facility
operators incorporateappropriate wildlife hazard mitigation
techniquesinto their operating practices. Airport operatorsalso
should encourage those operators toincorporate these mitigation
techniques in theiroperating practices.
c. Artificial marshes. Waste-watertreatment facilities may
create artificial marshesand use submergent and emergent
aquaticvegetation as natural filters. These artificialmarshes may
be used by some species of flockingbirds, such as blackbirds and
waterfowl, forbreeding or roosting activities. FAA
recommendsagainst establishing artificial marshes within
theseparations identified in the siting criteria stated in1-3.
d. Wastewater discharge and sludgedisposal. FAA recommends
against the dischargeof wastewater or sludge on airport
property.Regular spraying of wastewater or sludge disposalon
unpaved areas may improve soil moisture andquality. The resultant
turf growth requires morefrequent mowing, which in turn may
mutilate orflush insects or small animals and produce straw.The
maimed or flushed organisms and the strawcan attract hazardous
wildlife and jeopardizeaviation safety. In addition, the improved
turf mayattract grazing wildlife such as deer and geese.
Problems may also occur when discharges saturateunpaved airport
areas. The resultant soft, muddyconditions can severely restrict or
preventemergency vehicles from reaching accident sites ina timely
manner.
e. Underwater waste discharges. Theunderwater discharge of any
food waste, e.g., fishprocessing offal, that could attract
scavengingwildlife is not recommended within the
separationsidentified in the siting criteria in 1-3.
NWP-2012-441 Page 19 of 28 Enclosure 3
-
AC 150/5200-33 5/1/97
4
2-4. WETLANDS.
a. Wetlands on or near Airports.
(1) Existing Airports. Normally,wetlands are attractive to many
wildlife species.Airport operators with wetlands located on
ornearby airport property should be alert to anywildlife use or
habitat changes in these areas thatcould affect safe aircraft
operations.
(2) Airport Development. Whenpracticable, the FAA recommends
siting newairports using the separations identified in the
sitingcriteria in 1-3. Where alternative sites are notpracticable
or when expanding existing airports inor near wetlands, the
wildlife hazards should beevaluated and minimized through a
wildlifemanagement plan prepared by a wildlife damagemanagement
biologist, in consultation with the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
NOTE: If questions exist as to whether or not anarea would
qualify as a wetland, contact the U.S.Army COE, the Natural
Resource ConservationService, or a wetland consultant certified
todelineate wetlands.
b. Wetland mitigation. Mitigation maybe necessary when
unavoidable wetlanddisturbances result from new airport
developmentprojects. Wetland mitigation should be designed soit
does not create a wildlife hazard.
(1) FAA recommends that wetlandmitigation projects that may
attract hazardouswildlife be sited outside of the separations
identified in the siting criteria in 1-3. Wetlandmitigation
banks meeting these siting criteria offeran ecologically sound
approach to mitigation inthese situations.
(2) Exceptions to locating mitigationactivities outside the
separations identified in thesiting criteria in 1-3 may be
considered if theaffected wetlands provide unique
ecologicalfunctions, such as critical habitat for threatened
orendangered species or ground water recharge.Such mitigation must
be compatible with safeairport operations. Enhancing such
mitigationareas to attract hazardous wildlife should beavoided.
On-site mitigation plans may be reviewedby the FAA to determine
compatibility with safeairport operations.
(3) Wetland mitigation projects that areneeded to protect unique
wetland functions (see2-4.b.(2)), and that must be located in the
siting cri-teria in 1-3 should be identified and evaluated by
awildlife damage management biologist beforeimplementing the
mitigation. A wildlife damagemanagement plan should be developed to
reducethe wildlife hazards.
NOTE: AC 150/5000-3, Address List for RegionalAirports Division
and Airports District/FieldOffices, provides information on the
location ofthese offices.
2-5. DREDGE SPOIL CONTAINMENTAREAS. FAA recommends against
locatingdredge spo